I can mistrack virtually any MC cartridge with a specific direct disc record. I did it 100's of times with a number of MC cartidges and published the results in 1978, in an IEEE paper.
It is true that it is more difficult to mistrack a Shure, but the main thing is that the Shure cartridge has a 4 pole low pass filter connected to it above 20KHz, and that keeps any mistracking from being detected as such. The problem with the Shure, is that it did not sound as good as other phono cartridges, on the whole. That is why most serious audiophiles do not use Shure phono cartridges as their reference cartridge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john curl

I can't speak for Gordon Holt, but I did comparison tests between a Shure and an Ortofon MC, and put out the extra money for the Ortofon, for my personal system in 1965. However, for many customers, Berkeley Custom Electronics, where I worked part time, recommended the Shure M91 or M93 phono cartridges for less discriminate use.
For the record, I used the Shure M3D-N21 from 1963-1965, then switching to an Ortofon SPU, and then from 1970-1971 with a Shure M91, as a house guest in someone else's home, that I had installed for them. I then returned the Ortofon, and went on to the Supex, when it became available, then EMT, FR, etc. and never looked back, except to measure the Shure for my 1978 paper. It couldn't rise-time its way out of a paper bag, until the V15-V! '-)

Agree about the Shure v15 , was never a fan of it's laid back sound , tried Ortofon in the 70's but never had any luck with them in my setup (hum/noise) so I would have to say AT is what worked for me until I
Moved into grado stuff in the 80's , then Denon ...

The best sounding cartridge TT setup from that era (70's) for we was LP- 12/ Koetsu. Cartridge .....

JA undoubtedly uses the on-loan SYS2722 which I suspect for RIAA conformance tests has an inverse RIAA network*,

*and how accurate is it?

The Inverse RIAA in the AP is actually a table of relative level with frequency. The generator is quite accurate.

I also have a iRIAA network build in hardware using many paralleled 0.5% tolerance east german mil spec polystyrene cap's, so this results quite horrorshow tolerances for the cap's, plus exact value resistor combo's to 0.01%.

It agrees with AP2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcarso

Similarly, for distortion measurements he uses I presume the Ap generator, which is a rather poor approximation to the impedance of a cartridge most of the time. So distortion induced at the preamp input is likely underestimated.

Depends, for MC the 25 Ohm generator impedance is on the high side, for MM 600 Ohm is not a bad model, except we miss the inductance of the cart.

So if anything, it is likely to overestimate this type of distortion at least for MC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcarso

I know people who so completely trust Audio Precision that measurements made any other way are prima facie disbelieved. I told one friend that a DSP-based EQ box from Ashly had highish output noise, which would dominate the noise out of the loudspeakers in a prototype system--- and he flat-out didn't believe me, because it hadn't been measured with an Ap!

Yup. The problem is that there are two Churches and Religeons here and not just the Subjectivists as some claim. The Holy Church of the "Meter-readers and Double-Blinders" is at least as bad and as, aehhhm, double-blind (pun intended).

We rarely even see multitone measurements on the AP published, even if they can reveal a lot more in the noisefloor than traditional FFT. Most users don't even know what this box CAN do (never mind what it CANNOT).

Yup. The problem is that there are two Churches and Religeons here and not just the Subjectivists as some claim. The Holy Church of the "Meter-readers and Double-Blinders" is at least as bad and as, aehhhm, double-blind (pun intended).

It is hard for me to consider a world view that utilizes falsifiable, testable evidences as even remotely the same category as a subjectivist. Calling those that try to use actual facts a "religion" is disingenuous at best. Especially since any good objectivist (for lack of a better word) will happily be corrected and change viewpoints when new evidence is presented (or old evidence is falsified). There is no dogma here.

Ultimetely, it all boils down to the subjective, no matter what. Say you want a cartridge - you have a choice between one which has great reviews, and one which is almost unnoticed by the audio press, and in one or two reviews measures just so-so, but which sounds way better to you - which one will you buy?

Do you really care what it's made of, even if it's a wild beryllium+bamboo+silk mix, with yoghurt cooling?

Personally, I don't give a hoot what anyone else thinks of it, so long as I'm happy listening to it.

It is hard for me to consider a viewpoint that utilizes falsifiable, testable evidences as even remotely the same category as a subjectivist.

They do nothing such. There is no evidence for example that the common measurements have any correlation with sound quality.

As to the criticism of the ABX Tests and the ABX Mafia (the most vocal and high profile double blinders), we have been over this so often, I'll spare the re-run.

If you want to continue to believe in the face of contrary proof, well, that is your religion and I'll not try to dissuade you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain

Calling a viewpoint that tries to use facts a "religion" is disingenuous at best.

It would be, if that was the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain

Especially since any good objectivist (for lack of a better word) will happily be corrected and change viewpoints when new evidence is presented (or old evidence is falsified). There is no dogma here.

Really?

No Dogma? Evidence if presented leads to correction of viewpoints?

So why are the double blinders insist on retaining methods that go against any number of recommendations for such evaluation from serious professional bodies, continue to use statistical methods discredited over two decades ago?

And why are the meter readers still go on about THD for example, while routinely ignoring other tests and weightings for results that allow better correlation?

And why are both groups routinely jump and attempt to stamp on anyone who (with good evidence) criticises their ideas and methods?

No Dogma? Evidence if presented leads to correction of viewpoints?

I recognise them according to Matthew 7:20*, not according to their claims...

Ciao T

* Matthew 7:15 toi 20 reads:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I'm relatively new to this community, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the complaints and ongoing arguments you raise - but I agree, if your description of them is accurate, those are problematic. A science based viewpoint should be self correcting (with new evidence or methods) and truly discredited methods should be discarded. The question of what is considered "good evidence" can get sticky, but if truly good evidences are presented - they should not be dismissed.

Regarding the issue of measurements and sound quality - I disagree that they cannot tell us anything useful about the possible performance of a given piece of equipment. Is that the end all in "sound quality" - no, I don't think there is anything objective that really can tell us that. But we can still learn quite a lot about something from the measurements - and it does give us an "apples to apples" comparison point from which to begin our other evaluations.

e.g. Amp 1 shows more distortion under X condition than Amp 2. Does that tell us much about "sound quality"? maybe, maybe not. But we do know that under X condition, Amp 1 shows more distortion. That is a fact. How useful that fact is in determining the performance of the amp, is where things get messy.

One side is so convinced that it is RIGHT (without having actually any evidence sufficiently compelling to the other side would agree) that it will engage in anything it can get away with to suppress the ""WRONG" view and impose it's own view onto everyone.